Scoring:
Not significant;
Low Significance;
Moderate Significance;
Medium-high Significance;
High Significance;
Exceptional Significance
Evidence A: Key Biodiversity area with high endemism. Biodiversity hot spot.
Evidence B:Area is the Same District in the Kilimanjaro Region, Northern Tanzania. The Pare Mountains, running down the ‘spine’ of the District is part of the Eastern Arc of mountains, a unique ecosystem, and part of the Eastern Afromontane region global diversity hotspot. The surrounding plateaus are common ground for migratory herds of elephant, oryx, and zebra along with giraffe, gerenuk, hartebeest, lesser kudu, eland, impala, Grant’s gazelle, and numerous predators including lion, leopard and cheetah. Mkomazi is vital refuge for the highly endangered black rhino and the African wild dog. The area is largely a KBA, not an Intact Forest Landscape, but has a very high Species Range-Size Rarity.
Scoring:
>50 t/ha - Low;
50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;
>100 t/ha - High
Evidence A: The rate of degradation is reducing the carbon sink rate in the surrounding areas.
Evidence B:The area score Moderate for Irrecoverable Carbon
Scoring:
IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;
Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;
Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;
Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems
Evidence A: The district land is mainly under both Maasai and Pare people of the highlands. These are recognized Indigenous People’s territories.
Evidence B:The area is an Indicative Area of Indigenous and Community Land Rights. Maasai pastoralist tribes have settled in the lowland areas of Same District, primarily scattered in Ruvu, Kisiwani, Maore, Ndungu, Makanya, Kihurio and Hedaru. The Pare people (Wapare) settled in the mountains centuries ago. One could say that, before the turn of the 19 th century, the land was managed more or less sustainably under traditional tribal management. The Maasai in the lowlands moved where there was grass, leaving grazed areas to recuperate. The Pare people had developed subsistence methods of agriculture. However, as boundaries became firm, the Maasai could no longer move – leaving to overgrazing and subsequent land degradation. The Pare people in Same in the meantime have seen massive population growth, increasing the pressure on the land and causing the need to develop pristine forest on steep slopes into farmland, causing erosion and risk of landslides.
Scoring:
No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;
Significance of site(s) vaguely described;
Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained
Evidence A: Well articulated. People are dependent on the natural capital for survival.
Evidence B:The EoI describes only very briefly the significance; for Maasai an area to move around with their cattle and for the Pare people an area for subsistence agriculture.
Scoring:
No evident threats;
Low threats;
Moderate threats;
Medium-high threats;
High threats;
Requires urgent action
Evidence A: Urgent attention required to halt the increasing degradation. Large numbers of livestock and cultivation matched with increasing popualtion are cited as key drivers of degradation.
Evidence B:Due to unsustainable land management practices, including deforestation, overgrazing, and unsustainable cropping practices, the landscape of Same has gradually become degraded, while there is also increased pressure on land due to population growth. Lush forests and grasslands have been replaced by thorny bushes. Pastoralists, farmers and wildlife are in conflict over land use. The microclimate is becoming noticeably hotter, rains are becoming more erratic and less dependable during recent decades. Erosion has created deep gullies in the landscape, undermining roads, threatening school sites and villages, and taking with them valuable fertile topsoil. Irrigation systems are turning saline and natural springs are drying up. There is one large land deal, in some parts substantial forest loss between 2000-2019 and very high cumulative development pressures. According to Global Witness 2 land defenders were killed between 2016-2018 in Tanzania.
Scoring:
Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);
Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;
Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);
Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance
Evidence A: The District governments are hugely under resourced. Have grand plans that are not being implemented.
Evidence B:Tanzania’s legal framework recognizes IPLC ownership and control over lands. Moreover, the law also enables the establishment of community forestry projects. (RRI 2020) ~77.41 MHa are recognized by the government as controlled by IPLCs while an additional ~2.4 Mha are recognized as owned by IPLCs. In total, this represents 75% of the country’s total land area. (RRI 2015). The Tanzania Ministry of Environment, National Environment Management Council (NEMC) in its 1997 policy, the Tanzania National Parks (TANAPA) policy, the Program for Environmental Improvement in Same District (2018 – 2025) and the Environmental Management Act 2004 are mentioned in the EoI to provide some basis for the project objectives.
Scoring:
National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation
Evidence A: There is support from District Governing Council.
Evidence B:There appear to be conflicting camps of support for the recognition of IPLC control over forests between different ministries. The Tanzania Forest Service and the Ministry of Land appear to be the hubs of support. Support also appears to vary between districts at the sub-national level. (RRI 2020). The Same District has been working with local pastoral peoples (Maasai) and has employed the cut and carry training to farmers for feeding animals. Fodder trees are planted around the homesteads and used to demarcate farm plots and to improve soil fertility.
Scoring:
No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;
Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;
Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;
Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years
Evidence A: Lots of work has been done with IPLCs in the previous years.
Evidence B:The EoI mentions some environmental initiatives, but no IPLC-led initiatives.
Scoring:
Few to no complementary projects/investment;
Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;
Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial
Evidence A: There are projects being implemented but not on rehabilitation of eroded landscape.
Evidence B:The EoI mentions 7 related projects with various donors, but their investment levels are not clarified. The Same District Council will be called upon to be a heavy contributor of (non-financial) resources to this project. Other stakeholders would be: Ministry of Environment (NEMC), Ministry of Natural Resources (TANAPA), ONGAWA.org, Tanzania Integrated Development Initiative (TiDi), Same Mwanga Environmental Conservation Advisory Organization (SMECAO), Commonland, Empower Tanzania (ETI).Some in-kind contributions of Maasai are use of land, use of livestock, seeds, labor. The people in their own indigenous territory will in effect carry out the entire project. They will own the project, as they do their lands. Right now, there are activities that can be scaled up, such as fish farming, livestock and animal husbandry, crop planting and sowing, and water schemes.
Scoring:
Weakly aligned;
Partially aligned;
Well aligned;
Exceptionally well aligned
Evidence A: It meets the basic requirements.
Evidence B:Enhancing IPLC rights and governance of natural resources is ranked last at Q 10 in this EoI. The planned activities also reflect that the project is written more from environmental perspective than community perspective and focussing on official structures rather than traditional community structures, so the communities seem to be mainly beneficiairies. Nevertheless the project has potential to build capacity of IPLCs and to improve conservation and livelihoods, so partially alligned.
Scoring:
The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;
Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;
Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;
The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline
Evidence A: It is on the implementation where it is not clear whether the NGO (ETI) will be doing the work themselves. Looks like there is going to be a reliance on partners.
Evidence B:The activities make sense and can benefit and empower the communities and improve the conservation of the area, but the results mentioned are a strange mix of community, district and NGO perspectives and not well related to the planned activities.
Scoring:
Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;
Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;
Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;
The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context
Evidence A: The extent of the challenges seems to be really big . not sure if this project may be able to solve the degradation in the whole district.
Evidence B:The project addresses the main threats and uses the enabling opportunities to demarcation and registration of the customary land use rights in land titles, make Land Use Plans and work with the district Council on training the communities on improving conservation and livelihoods.
Scoring:
Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;
Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment
Evidence A: This funding will go a long way to lay the foundation on rehabilitation of degraded lands.
Evidence B:The EoI expresses that the budget range is sufficient and the planned activities and scale make this plausible.
Scoring:
None;
Small;
Moderate;
Significant
Evidence A: It is always difficult substantiate this as applicants may easily say yes but in reality this may only be confirmed during implementation.
Evidence B:The EoI mentions several related projects, in-kind contributions of communities and government and potential co-funding partners.
Scoring:
Not provided;
Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);
Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);
High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);
Very high above 1,000,000 Ha
Evidence A: If well managed by the applicant, yes .
Evidence B:The estimated total area under improved management is 259,300 Hectares.
Scoring:
No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;
Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;
Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;
Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals
Evidence A: Rehabilitation and restoration of degraded lands will go a long way to protect and enhance cultural landscape.
Evidence B:The provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project are mainly health related which does not seem to allign well with the project activities, but rather with previous work of Empower Tanzania on health care in the Same District.
Scoring:
Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;
This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;
This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;
This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance
Evidence A: The goal of this is to achieve a sustainable future for this landscape.
Evidence B:The EoI describes that this project will create showcases for good practice which hopefully will inspire follow up initiatives, but 20 years will be needed in total. No clear strategy how the project will sustain after 5 years.
Scoring:
Contributions not provided;
The project is weakly related to either national priorities;
The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;
The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities
Evidence A: The linkages with legislation are great.
Evidence B:The EoI mentions national priorities as defined in NBSAPs and NDCs and explains how the project will contribute to these.
Scoring:
Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;
Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;
Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');
Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming
Evidence A: There is adequate plan for gender mainstreaming.
Evidence B:The EoI mentions that the applicant has included women in projects for years, and realizes that to best change life in the home and villages, women need to lead the way. When both the women and men are trained and empowered, economic dynamics in the home improve. They intend to leverage women leaders in the community. However, no further explanation is given how they will achieve gender mainstreaming.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Low demonstrated potential;
Moderate demonstrated potential;
Medium-high demonstrated potential;
High demonstrated potential;
Exceptional demonstrated potential
Evidence A: This Project is is possible to scale up into any area with degradation challenges.
Evidence B:The project is not build from traditional community institutions, knowledge and culture and works mainly along formal government structures, but it does invest in the demarcation and registration of their customary land use rights in land titles. The investments in IPLC leadership are therefore moderate.
Scoring:
IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;
Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;
IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);
Fully IPLC composed and led approach
Evidence A: The actual work on the ground will require IPLC themselves.
Evidence B:The EoI claims that the applicant is an indigenous organization but this is nowhere substantiated and the main project staff are Same District Council officials. No demonstrated involvement of IPLCs in the project design or leadership, nor clear activities to build IPLC leadership.
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;
Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;
Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work
Evidence A: The planned activities will be implementable directly by IPLC with support of NGO and Same District officials.
Evidence B:The EoI mentions some relevant qualifications of staff but no information on demonstrated leadership relevant to the proposed work other than health care work and an unclear role in a landscape restoration research project.
Scoring:
No partners defined;
No IPLC partners identified;
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);
Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;
Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks
Evidence A: The organization has experience in working with IPLC
Evidence B:Out of 9 partners only the Maasai Village leaders – Chief Kiboko and 20 other elder councils seem to be IPLC. Their role is limited to Convening Maasai elders to join with the Same District Council to implement the project. Mobilizing a workforce to begin regenerative grazing and park boundary processes.
Scoring:
No skills demonstrated;
The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;
There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;
The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;
They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;
The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.
Evidence A: Given other projects implemnted the applicant has experience.
Evidence B:The staff seems to have technical environmental and project management skills but no demonstrated skills in community engagement and a track record that is limited to health care work.
Scoring:
Very limited (no criteria met);
Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);
Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);
Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance
Evidence A: There seems to be overly reliance on Same District Council for implementation.
Evidence B:The average annual budget of the organization is US$380,000. The largest annual budget of any project that the organisation is currently implementing is in range of US$10,000 to US$100,000 per year. The organisation’s funding comes from at least 10 sources, with no one source providing more than 20%. The organisation regularly produces financial reports and statements, which it makes available to the board and management, but these are often incomplete or delivered late. External audits are conducted on a periodic basis. The EoI lists 3 projects over $200,000,.
Scoring:
Answered no;
Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;
Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent
Evidence A: Difficult to say….
Evidence B:NA